From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T14:50:30+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

"Daniel Carrera" <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:20030711044138.GA2272@math.umd.edu...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 01:31:33PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:55:06 +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > > Now, I really think that the GPL is different from a bubble-suit.
> > > You do not need to take any action to protect from the GPL. If you
> > > end up with GPL code in your application, and you do not take any
> > > action, your application is still not GPL.
> >
> > Highly debatable and not determined by law or caselaw. The armchair
> > lawyers at /. have suggested that SCO may have possibly included
> > "proprietary" code with the GPLed code that they sent, or vice-versa
> > (particularly for the Linux compatibility layer) and doing so could
> > expose SCO to a massive violation of the GPL.
>
> I think you misunderstood what I said.  Allow me to illustrate.  Consider
> the following sequential steps:
>
> 1) I have a propietary program.
> 2) I include GPL code into it (assume it's by mistake if you like).
> 3) I release my program under my own license.
> 4) I (or someone else) realize that this program contains GPL code.
>
> At this point, the people who have already received my program do not
> automatically receive GPL rights to it.  You are safe.  However, I
> should cease distribution of my program.
>
>
> The SCO case refers to the opposite migration of code, and to SCO
> releaseing the code under the GPL.  You can't blame the GPL if you release
> something under the GPL and later decide you didn't want to.  In this way,
> the GPL is no different from (say) the BSD.
>
>
> > > You do not have to do anything to prevent your applications from
> > > becomming GPL, even after foreign GPL code has been included.
> >
> > Again, highly debatable, and this statement is likely *untrue*
> > because of the terms of the GPL itself.
>
> Whether I am right or not in my assertion that the GPL is not viral
> depends on the validity of this statement.  If the GPL can make your code
> GPL without your agreeing to that, then the GPL is viral.

It sounds more like you are talking about "contagion."  How "contagious" the
GPL is determines how easily you can "catch" it, whereas "viral" simply
refers to its tendency to attach and replicate.

The GPL is not very contagious, which I believe is your opinion as well.
It's very easily avoided.  You just don't use it if you don't want to.

However, once you've made the committment to release your application with
GPL code in it, and you release it with all source code marked appropriately
as GPL, you cannot rescind the license and it is forevermore release to the
world as GPL, and anyone who then derives work from it must do the same if
they wish to release their work; it is, by this action, viral.  Viral
referring to its replication properties.

So, yes, you can avoid the contagion by simply not releasing your
application as GPL, but once you have, it's GPL forever and cannot appear in
any derived works publicly unless those works were released under the GPL.

    Sean O'Dell